I was at the sea again and a few questions entered into my mind about the answer of Rav Shach about the law in the Rambam laws of marriage 5 law 7 that says a man can marry a woman by an object he stole. Just to be clear let me explain what Rav Shach say in order to answer the problem in the Rambam. The problem is that the thief does not own the object that he stole. but if he sells it or gives it to someone else and the owner has given up hope of getting the object again then the third person can keep it. The problem with using the object to marry a woman is that even though he owns it by mean of change of domain and abandonment but the object did not belong to the thief. There was` no change of domain until it gets into the hand of the woman. As the Ketzot Hachohen writes, you need to marry a woman by your own money, not money that become her after receiving it. The answer of Rav Shach and R. Shmuel Rozovski is that the thief has certain rights in the object and these he gives to her. /// The problem that there are no rights of a thief. He does not in fact give her any rights. rather she gets rights because of change of domain and abandonment of the owner. you see this when one buys a field from a person that stole it and put in time money and effort to improve it. When the field goes back to the owner, the buyer gets repaid from the thief for the improvement [Ram laws of robbery chapter 9 law 6]. The thief certainly has obligation to guard the stolen object until he can return it to it proper owner, but he gets no rights. only the person that buys it from him get rights as Rav Shach brings from the Rashba in Bava Kama page 33. The problem I see in this answer is even from the place that Rav Shach brings, I see no answer. The third person there, the one that bought the stolen ox, and plowed with it does not have to pay for it use, but that does not mean that the thief had any rights. Besides all the above, I might mention that even though the third party does not have to pay for the object according to the Raavad, but according to the Rambam, the third person that bought something from a thief does have to pay for it even though he keeps it. And even in the case of buying from a thief that was not well known, it is only by a decree of the sages that the one that bought it does not have to pay, but from the law of the torah he would have to pay. So even though the woman can keep the stolen object, the fact is that from the law of the torah, she would have to pay for it, and therefore he should be married only by the words of the sages, not from the torah.--------------------------------------------------A few questions occurred to me about the answer of רב שך about the law in the רמב''ם. a man can marry a woman by giving to her an object he stole. Let me explain what רב שך says in order to answer the problem in the רמב''ם. The problem is that the thief does not own the object that he stole. But if he sells it or gives it to someone else, and the owner has given up hope of getting the object again, then the third person can keep it. The problem with using the object to marry a woman is that even though she owns it by mean of change of domain and abandonment, but the object did not belong to the thief. There was` no change of domain until it gets into the hand of the woman. As the קצוות החושן writes, you need to marry a woman by your own money, not money that becomes her after receiving it. The answer of ר' שך is that the thief has certain rights in the object, and these rights he gives to her. The problem that there are no rights of a thief. He does not in fact give her any rights. Rather she gets rights because of change of domain and ייאוש of the owner. you see this when one buys a field from a person that stole it and put in time money and effort to improve it. When the field goes back to the owner, the buyer gets repaid from the thief for the improvement [רמב''ם laws of גזלה פרק ט' הלכה ו']. The thief certainly has obligation to guard the stolen object until he can return it to it proper owner, but he gets no rights. only the person that buys it from him get rights as רב שך brings from the רשב''א in בבא קמא page ל''ג. ///Just to be clear let me explain what רב שך say in order to answer the problem in the רמב''ם. the problem is that the thief does not own the object that he stole. but if he sells it or gives it to someone else and the owner has given up hope of getting the object again then the third person can keep it. the problem with using the object to marry a woman is that even though he owns it by mean of change of domain and abandonment but the object did not belong to the thief. There was` no change of domain until it gets into the hand of the woman. As the קצוות החושן writes חושן משפט שנ''ג , you need to marry a woman by your own money, not money that become her after receiving it. the answer of ר' שך is that the thief has certain rights in the object, and these rights he gives to her./// The problem I see in this answer is even from the place that רב שך brings, I see no answer. The third person there, the one that bought the stolen ox, and plowed with it does not have to pay for it use, but that does not mean that the thief had any rights. Besides all the above, I might mention that even though the third party does not have to pay for the object according to the ראב''ד , but according to the רמב''ם, the third person that bought something from a thief does have to pay for it even though he keeps it. And even in the case of buying from a thief that was not well known, it is only by a decree of the חכמים that the one that bought it does not have to pay but from the law of the תורה he would have to pay. so even though the woman can keep the stolen object, the fact is that from the law of the תורה, she would have to pay for it, and therefore he should be married only by the words of the חכמים, not from the תורה.